Jump to content

Talk:Annexation of Tibet by the People's Republic of China

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pbsavon (talk | contribs) at 12:14, 28 July 2015 (→‎Annexation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Clarify "liquidated" remark

There's a parenthetical in both this article and the Battle of Chamdo that "5,000 Tibetan soldiers were 'liquidated' according to Thomas Laird". It's completely unclear what this means. Liquidated is often used as a euphemism for execution, but that contradicts the rest of the article. If there is legitimate scholarly disagreement as to what happened to Tibetan POWs, then the article should detail it more. Otherwise, the parenthetical should be removed, as it is confusing and contradictory. MarcusGraly (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added contradict tag to the section. MarcusGraly (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have tracked this down a bit. Laird is himself rather confusing and contradictory on this point, so is not a good source. His source for the 5000 liquidated is Tsering Shakya's The Dragon in the Land of Snows: A History of Modern Tibet Since 1947, which is clearer. On page 45 it says, "Later the Chinese announced that 'a total of 5,738 enemy troops had been liquidated' and 180 Tibetans troops killed or wounded." I would interpret that "liquidated" refers to prisoners, presumably paroled in the manner described by Laird and others. I will update the article to make this clear. MarcusGraly (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Tsering Shakya's footnote. He's quoting Zhang Guohua, writing in 1962. "Altogether 21 large and small scale engagements were fought and over 5,700 enemy men were destroyed." Does anyone else think this quote probably refers to the 1959 revolt? It would be seriously revisionist to apply in to Chamdo, which clearly did not have flighting of this scale. MarcusGraly (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ultimate source is Zhang Guohua's "Tibet returns to the Bosom of the Motherland, Revolutionary Reminiscences", published in 1962, which I do not have direct access to. MarcusGraly (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It can be found in the Survey of China Mainland Press, no. 2854. My personal view is that even if Zhang is talking about the 1950 campaign, he should not be considered a credible source, given that all other accounts differ substantially. MarcusGraly (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of 5,000 Tibetan soldiers being "liquidated" was brought up a few years ago [1] (by me). My inclination would be to take it out of the article entirely, since it's misleading, if not downright incorrect. The best reason I can see to keep it in would be that readers will have encountered the 5,000 casualty estimate previously so it might be worth having some explanation in the article about where it comes from. It might be better to mention it in the article than having to repeatedly revert adjustments to the casualty estimates and re-discuss it on the talk page. But I still lean towards taking it out at the moment.
Interesting idea that Zhang Guohua could be writing about the 1959 rebellion (or perhaps all the PLA's activities in Tibetan areas up until the report?). Or it could be that "liquidated" has a different meaning in PRC military reports, that the translation is misleading, or that it was part of the hyperbole that ruled PRC reporting from about 1958 until after the death of Mao. I wonder if a reliable source has tracked this down.--Wikimedes (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I went to a University library and read the article. Zhang is very clearly talking about Chamdo and not later actions. (He gives a rather vivid account of the whole campaign, including acclimating his troops to high altitude.) Anyway, Ill update the articles to make it clear that he said it and not the later authors who cite him directly or indirectly and let the readers decide for themselves. MarcusGraly (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Annexation

Where is the reference to annexation? This may only be one way of framing this "incorporation", but the failure even to refer to it seems to be a political choice. Presumably there are people paying a lot of attention to this article... --Human fella (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While there has been a lot of political wrangling over what goes into this article, the PRC was very clever not to call its acquisition of Tibet a "conquest" or an "annexation". History texts and news sources call formal annexations annexations, but I don't recall seeing one call an undeclared annexation an annexation. If reliable sources can be found that call it an annexation, this can be mentioned in the article.--Wikimedes (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does the PRC's choice of terminology determine how the issue is presented on Wikipedia? As far as I can tell, the word "incorporation" is just a euphemistic way of trying to make what was unambiguously a takeover by military force sound neutral. For what it's worth, both Google Books and Google Scholar turn up hundreds of hits for "annexation of Tibet", most referring either to 1950-51 or 1959. This study from the Emory International Law Review may be of particular interest if you're specifically trying to establish "credibility" on those terms. The author writes: "Why then does every state continue to validate China’s sovereignty over Tibet, when its only conceivable claim, as shown repeatedly by historical and international law scholarship, is military annexation?" and "By continuing to denominate Tibet a “part of” China, the international community and its constituent states validate China’s military conquest, annexation, and colonization of Tibet." --Human fella (talk) 12:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you are finding reliable sources that call it annexation. Feel free to mention annexation in the article as long as you provide citations. (And thanks for the law review reference; it should make interesting reading.)--Wikimedes (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should come as no surprise to anyone how many chinese nationalists are going around blatantly inserting PRC government sanctioned versions of fictional history and 'balanced' version of chinese historian 'analysis' that actually seeks to whitewash anything that makes the chinese 'lose face'. Many people have been quietly noticing these trends with china-related articles, where titles and contents are not-so-subtly influenced into something more euphemistic or outright revisionist. For instance, 'Invasion of Tibet' has been changed into something along the lines of 'Incorporation of Tibet into PRC'. Chinese propaganda and revisionist claims don't always outright seek to reverse the contents, but they also seek to again not so subtly feign ignorance or claim 'lack of sources' whenever it suits their whims - as if attempting to insist that materials backed by evidence which clearly displays negative chinese conduct are 'biased' and is in need of revision. Recent edited sections of clothing and equipment are but one of such numerous examples where insistance of positive portrayal of chinese take precedent over presentation of opposing viewed backed up by far more numerous evidence, not to mention blatant lack of even basic citation.

There does exist a tendency of such groups that fools the 'balanced' editors into thinking they are somehow representing a 'fair' view when accepting such biased notion as a valid entry. I encourage wikipedia editors to exercise greater caution and understand that simple and obvious revisions on entries are not the only way for an individual to attempt and influence opinions of those who read the articles.

As it stands now, the whole articles almost sound like an apologist revision history sanctioned by the chinese government. Invasion of Tibet (1950) just redirects to Battle of Chambo that includes a blatantly obvious nationalist smear campaign against those who fought against china, while the entire tibet invasion is referred to euphemistically as 'incorporation'.

I am still waiting for some fool to pipe up and mention the favorite excuse about 'native americans'. As if they cared about Native Americans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.61.181 (talk) 05:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some reliable sources that call it 'annexation' or 'invasion':

  • Melvyn C. Goldstein; Gelek Rimpoche (January 1989). A History of Modern Tibet, 1913-1951: The Demise of the Lamaist State. University of California Press. pp. 638–. ISBN 978-0-520-06140-8. Chapter 18 is titled The People's Liberation Army Invades without calling it annexation.
  • Anne-Marie Blondeau; Katia Buffetrille (2008). Authenticating Tibet: Answers to China's 100 Questions. University of California Press. pp. 58–. ISBN 978-0-520-24464-1. calls it 'annexation'.
  • Tsepon Wangchuk Deden Shakabpa (October 2009). One Hundred Thousand Moons: An Advanced Political History of Tibet. BRILL. pp. 9–. ISBN 90-04-17732-9. calls it 'annexation'. The title of chapter 20(p. 915) of the book is Chinese Communist Invasion of Tibet

So there are multiple reliable sources to support changing the name of the article. Unless better sources are found, I'll move the article to 'China's annexation of Tibet'. --Happyseeu (talk) 05:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about the article Incorporation of Xinjiang into the People's Republic of China? Don't just move this article, please. --Cartakes (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Annexation' would WP:NPOV since parties dispute the nature of this event.--Pbsavon (talk) 12:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

The article cites one-sided sources and uses emotive, non-neutral terminology with insufficient balance. I am no apologist for the Communist government, but this article skews too far in its tone, which damages its credibility. Some examples:

  • In the lead: "... under duress...", which reflects the view of one side of the debate.
  • In the lead: "when the Dalai Lama fled into exile and after which the Government of Tibet was dissolved", not even sure which POV this is trying to push but clearly a partisan interpretation of the facts.
  • In the "Background" section: "In 1846, the British Empire converted Nepal into a semi-autonomous protectorate, in 1853 conquered Sikkim, in 1865 invaded Bhutan, and in 1885 colonized Burma, occupying by force the whole southern flank of Tibet, which remained the only Himalayan kingdom free of British influence": say what you wish about Tibet in 1705 or 1925, but I challenge the author to say with a straight face that the balance of sources regard Tibet as a kingdom as of 1885. And why is it being listed in parallel with Nepal or Burma?
  • In the "Background" section: "thus converting Tibet into a British protectorate": one of the few strange claims that actually gets a citation. But really? Had the author looked beyond the solitary POV source, surely they would not have written this down as if it were a fact.

I will stop here. The issues run throughout the article. It's not only non-NPOV, it's a very strange POV, as if the author thinks Tibet is rightfully British, rather than Tibetan or Chinese. Very strange.

I'd say you need to present your argument better with justification. What are the reliable sources that back up your POV? That's how to improve this article. I'm removing the POV tag until you can clearly present your case. --Happyseeu (talk) 06:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lhasa Treaty

As to how to phrase the part of Lhasa Treaty, I'll refer to two authoritative sources:

  1. Anne-Marie Blondeau; Katia Buffetrille (2008). Authenticating Tibet: Answers to China's 100 Questions. University of California Press. pp. 47–. ISBN 978-0-520-24464-1. states the Lhasa treaty was signed 'under constraint', because the Tibetans had just been defeated by the Younghusband expedition. This book is the collective effort of 15 Tibetologists to respond to PRC's version of Tibet history and represents the field well.
  2. The other source is Tsepon Wangchuk Deden Shakabpa (October 2009). One Hundred Thousand Moons: An Advanced Political History of Tibet. BRILL. pp. 657–684. ISBN 90-04-17732-9., which describes the events around it well. Shakabpa wrote the history of Tibet referencing numerous Tibetan sources and from a Tibetan perspective, and is a standard reference for Tibetan history. His book was banned in China because it deviates too much from PRC's official version of history.

None of these use the term 'unequal treaty', and it seems that only Chinese sources use this term. So 'unequal treaty' shouldn't be used here since it's not the majority view of scholars, to say the least. --Happyseeu (talk) 05:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at the terms of the Treaty, it's absolutely an unequal treaty by any standard. Why do you want to hide that? Can you find us a source that says Treaty of Lhasa is not an unequal treaty? STSC (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia should reflect the majority view of scholars/experts based on reliable source, not the opinion of editors. That's what an encyclopedia is for. If you want to express your opinion, go to BBS or blog about it, do not abuse Wikipedia.

If you do want to hear other editor's opinion, here is mine. I see at least another problem with this: both the Treaty of Lhasa and 17 point agreement was signed after militarily defeat the Tibetan army, so why would you call one an unequal treaty, but not the other? It is unfair. --Happyseeu (talk) 02:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Annexation_of_Tibet_by_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China&oldid=673459749"